Essay
Belief
Creed
Psychology
Weirdness
13 min read

There’s more to manifesting, here’s its philosophical backstory

Beyond the so-called sensible, a hidden strand of Western spiritual thought reemerges.

Daniel is an advertising strategist turned vicar-in-training.

Against a purple glittery background, a orange notelet reads: 'what you seek is seeking you.'
Maia I on Unsplash.

I’m slightly late to the party, but you may have heard that the Cambridge 2024 Word of the Year was ‘Manifest’. Essentially, ‘To Manifest’,  according to our friends at Cambridge, is  ‘to imagine achieving something you want, in the belief that doing so will make it more likely to happen’. For many people, ‘manifesting’ belongs in the eye-browraising intellectual funfair of New Age spirituality and self-help gurus and charlatans whose books belong in the second-hand boxes outside shops on the high street of dilapidated coastal towns selling crystals.

If you’re a Gen Xer and elder Millennial, you’ll probably have heard of Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret, a 2006 self-help hit. She claimed to teach readers the secret to prosperity, self-realisation, and fulfilling your heart’s desires. Visualise the object of your desire in your mind, use the innate concentrative energy of your cognition, and, through the scientific Law of Attraction, the Universe (yes, the capital ‘U’, Universe)  will deliver unto you those things which you have brought into your mind because ‘like attracts like’. It shares a very similar perspective to a book written a hundred years prior in 1910 called The Science of Getting Rich by William Wattles which, again, claimed that through ‘creative thought’ you could achieve financial success. By ‘creative thought’ Wattle didn’t mean coming up with a growth strategy for your personal finances - he meant, like Bryne, that there was a psychical force in the Universe that you could tap into with your mind which could manifest, in reality, your thoughts and desires.

Again, if you’re a child of sensible society, you probably would have dismissed all of this as pseudoscientific New Age wishful thinking intended to make bad authors rich. Or, if you were more generous, you might have said that these were helpful psychological practices like ‘focusing on your goals’ encoded in woo-hoo New Age language. It belongs in the weird corner of society. And so, you might be somewhat baffled to find it breaking through into mainstream society - so much so that a sensible institution, like Cambridge University, would highlight it as a groundswell trend in the twenty-first century. 

But is this really a surprise? What has sensible society given us? For many, it’s been the managed and catastrophic decline into societal disillusionment, a generation of broken promises, and the feeling of being feudal serfs under the dominion of national banks and billionaires while we medicate ourselves to death with algorithmically-driven AI slop in the spiritual vacuum of a fragmented and polarised society. The fact that the Oxford Dictionary's Word of the Year was ‘brainrot' makes this all the more ironic and sad. And so is it any wonder that people are looking beyond the sensible towards the magical, the mystical, and the Esoteric? And I’m using the word ‘sensible’ in both ways. People are looking beyond the status quo of what is acceptable and accepted knowledge, but they are also looking to things that are beyond their senses.

Human consciousness can manifest thoughts into reality through metaphysical practices like concentration and visualisation. For New Thought thinkers, this was connected with loftier aims than getting rich or manifesting a pay-rise at work.

I’m definitely not alone in this diagnosis. It’s the thesis behind Rod Dreher’s new book Living in Wonder and Justin Brierley’s The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God tracks prominent thought-leaders turning to God and mysticism. Even Wunderman Thompson, a leading advertising agency, highlighted the $3.7 trillion dollar neo-spirituality and wellness industry in their ever quotable report on the ‘Age of Re-Enchantment’. To be honest, even this recent trend of authors proclaiming the ‘spiritual turn’ is a bit late to the game. Back in 1999, the sociologist Peter Berger argued forcefully that the latter decades of the twentieth century saw the radical ‘desecularization of the world’. 

Clearly, cultural trends don’t happen in a matter of years, but take place over decades, even centuries and it seems that we’re finally seeing the mainlining of a previously hidden strand of Western spiritual thought into wider society. So much so that your children and neighbours are searching for ‘manifesting’ on Google and YouTube as a genuine intellectual query. 

Where does this all come from? Ideas don’t spring up from nowhere. They have a history, and the philosophical ideas underneath manifesting weren’t just made-up in the last minute of human history. They in fact go back to an incredibly rich and developed, and once respected, tradition of thought that we’re only getting to grips with again  in recent decades. 

Historical roots of manifesting

The modern concept of ‘manifesting’ finds its root in the New Thought movement of the nineteenth century that shared many themes with the earlier American Transcendentalists. While Transcendentalism emphasised the unity of nature, humanity, and God, New Thought took this further, focusing on the mind’s power to shape reality.

Both movements emerged as a response to the perceived spiritual emptiness of Enlightenment-era materialism, seeking to reignite our connection to the metaphysical. 

Central to New Thought was the belief that the human mind is not merely a passive observer but an active force in the universe - capable of influencing both spiritual and material realms through concentration and intention. Human consciousness shapes reality in the fullest sense. In other words, Human consciousness can manifest thoughts into reality through metaphysical practices like concentration and visualisation. For New Thought thinkers, this was connected with loftier aims than getting rich or manifesting a pay-rise at work. It was about sparking a spiritual revival, attaining a unified theory of everything, and ultimately, salvation. 

“Consciousness shapes reality.” On one level, this is obviously true. You need consciousness to design buildings and cathedrals and strategic operation models to run companies. Even the placebo effect - something that continues to baffle medical professionals - shows that mental states can have tangible effects on the physical world.

For those who pray, this idea feels almost intuitive. Your silent thoughts reach into the metaphysical realm. How else does God hear your prayers? But where prayer is directed towards a personal God, manifesting envisions tapping into a universal force, drawing power through sheer concentration. It’s less about thanksgiving and more about metaphysical technique - what you might call a kind of ‘science of prayer’. (For what it’s worth, if you’ve ever seen a ‘Christian Science’ bookshop, this is what they’re getting at.) 

The New Thought movement is what the scholar Catherine Albanese calls a metaphysical religion of nineteenth century America. It went against the major Protestant revivalist movements at the time, as well as the mainstream scientific community. They rejected Christian notions about God as a sovereign being who gives salvation to the individual through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but rather saw Him as the metaphysical font of life and universal forces. And they rejected the scientific community for ignoring the spiritual and intuitive aspects of nature. It fell somewhere in-between. Much like other disciplines that we might call ‘pseudo-scientific’ or ‘pseudo-religious’ like Astrology, Alchemy, and Magic. 

Behind the New Thought movement 

The rabbit hole goes deeper. The New Thought and Transcendental movements didn’t just spring up from nowhere either. It is a child of what recent scholars and intellectual historians have begun to call the ‘Western Esoteric Tradition’. In this bucket, you have the familiar traditions of Astrology, Alchemy, and Magic (what some people call the ‘occult sciences’) as well as lesser known ideas like Theosophy, Theurgy, Anthroposophy, Mesmerism, Animal Magnetism and Hermeticism. Western Esotericism is a philosophical and spiritual strand that draws on ideas that go as far back as early Antiquity from certain interpretations of the ideas of Plato and a mysterious Egyptian magical figure, ‘Hermes Trismegistus’, who is said to have written a book called the Corpus Hermetica which lays down many of those philosophical assumptions held by the Transcendentalists - The unity of the world, the Law of Correspondence, and the centrality of the Human Mind as a unique mediator.  The ‘‘Law of Correspondence,’ is particularly interesting. It suggests that everything in existence—from the human mind to the stars—operates in a symphony of interconnected harmony - there is a resonance, a ‘sympathy’ up and down the universe. This idea continues to underpin contemporary practices like visualization, meditation, and even astrology.

An engraving of  shows a standing mesmerist pointing to a sitting patient, with lines drawn between the,
A practitioner of mesmerism using animal magnetism on a woman who responds with convulsions. Credit: Wellcome Library, London.

We might think that all these ideas of Western Esotericism have always been fringe. Again - for non-sensible people. The reality is that these ideas have played a profoundly influential role in the history of Western thought. Isaac Newton was not only a scientist and a Christian, but he was an obsessive Alchemist. Friedrich Hegel, probably the most influential philosopher of the nineteenth century, was a keen reader of the Heterodox Christian Mystic, Jakob Boehme - a monumental figure in Western Esotericism - even calling him the First German Philosopher. His ideas about the progress of history and the self-realisation of the World Soul find their origins not in Enlightenment philosophy but in Western Esotericism mediated through the Romantics. In fact, many of the Romantic Movements that ebbed and flowed since the 1790s to the contemporary world drew deep inspiration from the Western Esoteric tradition. They represented intellectual movements that rejected Enlightenment and Orthodox Christian thought and sought to retrieve spiritual and metaphysical insights from other ancient sources. 

Esotericism has also deeply influenced modern art, shaping the work of some of the most celebrated artists in the last two centuries. Claude Debussy was deeply influenced by the late nineteenth-century Parisian esoteric revival and spent many Wednesday evenings in salons discussing sacred geometry and the Tarot, while W.B. Yeats, the famous Irish poet, was an initiate of the Theosophical society. Perhaps most notably, Kandinsky, was deeply impressed by esoteric spiritualism. His book Concerning the Spiritual in Art argues that colors and shapes are not merely aesthetic tools but bear profound metaphysical significance. For Kandinsky, abstract art was a rejection of materialism and a reawakening of humanity’s spiritual potential.

In fact, the idea that the artist plays a central role in spiritual awakening was common to some esoteric movements. Josephin Péladan, a prominent figure in the French Occult Revival, wrote: 

“Artist, thou art priest: Art is the great mystery; and if your attempt turns out to be a masterwork, a divine ray descends as on an altar. Oh real presence of the divinity resplendent under these supreme names: Vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo, Beethoven, and Wagner. Artist, thou art king; art is the real kingdom.” 

The artist is the beating spiritual heart of the human community. Again, does this sound familiar? 

You could say that Western Esotericism, particularly in the last 200 years, represents a powerful counter-movement that sincerely and powerfully raged against spiritual death, meaninglessness, and the phenomena of disenchantment. 

We often like to tell the story of Western philosophical and religious thought in the last 250 years as two sides locked in mortal combat. On one hand, you have the traditional Christian worldview. God is real, miracles exist, and the universe is alive with prayer and worship and open to the supernatural. Meanwhile, you have the new bulwark of Enlightenment secular atheism laying siege to the Christian world, stitching up the world into a closed system of pure science and evacuating society of the miraculous, the sacred, and the supernatural. 

In response, Christians developed their own response to modernity and presented a way through the meaninglessness brought about by the Nietzschian death of God - theologians demonstrated how Christianity could meet the existential hunger felt by every individual heart. Meanwhile, the Evangelicals sent out missionaries to the ends of the earth with storming success such that today, China is set to become the most populous Christian nation in the world, and the Pentecostals spread like wildfire infusing almost every Christian denomination in the world with a sense of personal miraculous encounter with the Holy Spirit of God in a mundane world. At the same time, the atheist and New Atheist philosophers continued to mock and polemicise religion as the source of all violence and dangerous superstitions. But their arguments are fading into obscurity and persuasiveness as some of the key advocates of that early twenty-first century movement are changing their minds. 

This two-strand narrative—of Secular Disenchanted Nature governed by science versus Christian Enchanted Creation under a Trinitarian God—has shaped much of Western thought. Yet this framework is now undergoing a significant renovation. A third strand has always existed, though it has often been overlooked: the strand of Enchanted Nature. This perspective holds that humans have access to the supernatural and an open-ended universe outside of any religious and Christian frame, and this access is governed by ancient philosophies and ideas that are becoming more and more plausible in contemporary society - ergo MANIFEST. 

So what? 

If you’re a child of sceptical modernity and raised on the New Atheists, contemporary society must feel like a whiplash. It’s becoming more and more implausible to maintain a materialistic and rational worldview and the closed universe. Respectable thought-leaders are turning to faith and your friends, children, and colleagues are looking at you as if you're the weird one who lives in a little Reddit-atheist lock-in universe. It is becoming socially more and more difficult to maintain this without either being wilfully blind or being accused of imposing an quasi-imperialist vision of Western Scientism against the reality that most people in the world actually believe and live in. 

Christian thinkers and leaders ignore this at their peril. To dismiss the Esoteric based on books like The Secret would be like dismissing Christianity based on Instagram memes. When you walk past one of those crystal shops, or overhear a colleague comparing star charts, you’re in-fact encountering a millenia old intellectual tradition which taps into perennial human longings for cosmic connections. Sneering at this misses the point entirely. After all, Christians believe in a divine-human Messiah who reigns above angels and archangels who conquered demons and turns his ear to the whispered prayers of broken hearts on dark cold nights. What do you mean that ‘manifesting’ is ‘unscientific’? If you want to critique manifesting or astrology, you’ll need arguments rooted in your own rich tradition—not borrowed Enlightenment dismissals, the same ones once aimed at Christianity itself.

Christians should also recognise that Western Esotericism shares more-or-less common aims. Both seek to renew society, spread wisdom, and heal souls. But this doesn’t mean the two can coexist uncritically. Christianity no longer exists in a vacuum. It is in a marketplace of ideas and Christians need to discern what makes Christianity uniquely special and ensure that it doesn’t adopt ideas that can dilute its integrity. 

The word manifest reveals more than a passing trend—it taps into a deep human longing.

History reminds us that Christianity and esotericism have long had a complex and entangled history. Renaissance Catholic Christians first re-introduced Hermetic ideas and Kabbalah back into the Western mind, and it was nineteenth century Protestant Christians who tried to encode Christianity into the wider frameworks of Esoteric thought and injected society with the panoply of sects and secret societies. Would it surprise you that some of the leading Occultists back then, like Eliphas Levi, were motivated to promote Jesus Christ? Maybe you’re a Christian artist and that quote above from Péladan was disconcerting precisely because of how closely it matches your intuitions. This history is both a caution and invitation: to understand the spiritual landscape more deeply and engage more thoughtfully. 

The real challenge isn’t opening minds to the supernatural - that’s already happening. The task now is to show why the longing for cosmic connection finds its true answer in the person of Jesus Christ. And in a world captivated by openness, that’s no easy task. And it's far more attractive to tell people to be more ‘open-minded’ than to be ‘close-minded’. 

The word manifest reveals more than a passing trend—it taps into a deep human longing. Beneath the vision boards and affirmations, beyond the social media buzzwords, lies a shared ache for transcendence—a yearning to live in a world that feels alive, meaningful, and connected. It’s the search for something more.

We’re not just bystanders to this cultural moment; we’re participants in a profound shift. This is an invitation to move beyond easy skepticism or condescension. What we’re witnessing isn’t a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon but a continuation of a timeless quest to find order, purpose, and connection in a universe that so often feels fragmented. 

But let’s be honest: this is a competitive and crowded marketplace of ideas. Ancient philosophies, mystical practices, and modern interpretations are converging in a swirl of cosmic vibrations, personal empowerment, and spiritual techniques. And while that diversity is exciting, it’s also disorienting. The challenge for all of us, no matter our background or beliefs, is to discern what’s authentic, what’s helpful, and what’s merely noise.

Join with us - Behind the Seen

Seen & Unseen is free for everyone and is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you’re enjoying Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?

Alongside other benefits (book discounts etc.), you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing what I’m reading and my reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin

Editor-in-Chief

Article
Community
Culture
Generosity
Psychology
7 min read

Is empathy really a weapon?

Musk and Fonda disagree on whether empathy is a bug or a feature.
A montage shows Elon Musk wielding a chain saw, Jane Fonda flexing her muscles and Hannah Arendt smoking.
Wordd Wrestling Empathy.

You may have heard that you can kill a person with kindness, but in recent weeks have you also heard that you can bring about your own death through empathy? In an interview recorded with podcaster Joe Rogan in February, Elon Musk added his voice to a cohort of American neo-capitalists when he claimed, “We've got civilizational suicidal empathy going on” and went on to describe empathy as having been “weaponized” by activist groups.  

“The fundamental weakness of western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit… they’re exploiting a bug in western civilization, which is the empathy response.”  

In recent weeks empathy has become one of the hot topics of American politics, but this is not the first time that Musk has shared his thoughts about empathy, and it should be noted that on the whole he is not really against it. Musk identifies, rightly, that empathy is a fundamental component of what it means to be human, and in previous interviews has often spoken often about his vision to preserve “the light of human consciousness” – hence his ambition to set up a self-sustaining colony of humans on Mars.  

But he also believes that empathy is (to continue in Musk’s computer programming terminology) a vulnerability in the human code: a point of entry for viruses which have the capacity to manipulate human consciousness and take control of human behaviours. Empathy, Musk has begun to argue, makes us vulnerable to being infected:  

"The woke mind virus is fundamentally anti-science, anti-merit, and anti-human in general. Empathy is a good thing, but when it is weaponized to push irrational or extreme agendas, it can become a dangerous tool." 

Strangely, on certain fundamentals, I find it easy to agree with Musk and his contemporaries about empathy. For example, I agree that empathy is essential to being human. Although, far from empathy leading us to “civilisational suicide”, I would say it is empathy that saves humanity from this fate. If consciousness is (as Musk would define it) the brain’s capacity to process complex information and make a rational and informed choices, then empathy, understood as the ability to anticipate the experiences, feelings, and even reactions of others, is a crucial source of that information. Without empathy, we cannot make good decisions that benefit wider society and not just ourselves. Without it, humanity becomes a collection of mere sociopaths. 

Another point on which Musk and I agree is that empathy is a human weak point, one that can be easily exploited. Ever since the term “empathy” was coined in the early twentieth century, philosophers and psychologists have shown a sustained fascination with the way that empathy causes us to have concern for the experiences of others (affective empathy), to think about the needs of others (cognitive empathy), and even to feel the feelings of others (emotional contagion). Any or all of these responses can be used for good or for ill – so yes, I agree with Musk that empathy has the potential to be exploited.  

But it is on this very question of who is exploiting empathy and why, that I find myself much more ready to disagree with Musk. Whilst he argues that “the woke mind virus” is using empathy to push “irrational and extreme agendas”, his solution is to propose that empathy must be combined with “knowledge”. On the basis of knowledge, he believes, sober judgement can be used to resist the impulse of empathy and rationally govern our conscious decision making. Musk states: 

“Empathy is important. It’s important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree—make sure you understand the fundamental principles, the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." 

What I notice in this system is that Musk places knowledge before empathy, as if existing bits of information, “fundamental principles”, are the lenses through which one can interpret the experiences of another and then go on to make a conscious and rational judgement about what we perceive.  

There is a certain realism to this view, one that has not been ignored by philosophers. The phenomenologists of the early twentieth century, Husserl, Heidegger, Stein – those who first popularised the very idea of empathy – each described in their own way how all of us experience the world from the unique positionality of our own perspective. Our foreknowledge is very much like a set of lenses that strongly governs what we perceive and dictates what we can see about the world around us. The problem is: that feeling of foreknowledge can easily be manipulated. To put it another way – we ourselves don’t entirely decide what our own lenses are.  

To graft this on to Musk’s preferred semantic tree: empathy is a means by which the human brain can write brand new code. 

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, another great twentieth century thinker, Hannah Arendt, explored how totalitarian regimes seek to control not just the public lives but also the thought lives of individuals, flooding them with ideologies that manipulate precisely this: they tell people what to see. Ideologies are, in a sense, lenses – ones that make people blind to the unjust and violent actions of a regime:  

"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists." 

A big part of the manipulation of people’s sense of foreknowledge is the provision of simplistic explanations for complex issues. For example, providing a clearly identifiable scapegoat, a common enemy, as a receptacle of blame for complex social and economic problems. As we know all too painfully, in early twentieth century Europe, this scapegoat became the Jewish people. Arendt describes how, whilst latent antisemitism had long been a feature of European public life, the Nazi party harnessed this this low-level antipathy and weaponised it easily. People’s sense of foreknowledge about the “differentness” of this group of “outsiders” was all too manipulable, and it was further cultivated by the Nazis’ use of “disease”, “contagion” and “virus” metaphors when speaking about the Jews. This gave rise a belief that it was rational and sensible to keep one’s distance and have no form of dialogue with this ostracised group.  

But with such distance, how would a well-meaning German citizen ever identify that their sense of foreknowledge about what it meant to be Jewish had been manipulated? Arendt identified rightly that totalitarian systems seek to eliminate dialogue, because dialogue creates the possibility of empathy, the possibility of an exchange of perspectives that might lead to knowledge – or at least a more nuanced understanding of what is true about complex situations. 

When I look at Musk’s comments, I wonder if what I can see is a similar instinct for scapegoating, and for preventing dialogue with those who might provide the knowledge that comes from another person’s perspective. In his rhetoric, the “woke mind” has been declared a common enemy, a “dangerous virus” that can deceive us into becoming “anti-merit” and “anti-human.” In dialogue, those who claim to be suffering or speaking about the suffering of others might be enabled to deploy their weaponized empathy, trying to make us care about other, to the potential detriment of ourselves and even wider humanity’s best interests. Therefore, it is made to seem better to isolate oneself and make rational judgements on behalf of those in need, firmly based on one’s existing foreknowledge, rather than engage in dialogue that might expose us to the contagion of wokeness.  

Whilst this isolationist approach appears to wisely prioritise knowledge over empathy, it misses the crucial detail that empathy itself is a form of knowledge. The experience of empathising through paying attention to and dialoguing with the “other” is what expands our human consciousness and complexifies our human decision making by giving us access to new information. To graft this on to Musk’s preferred semantic tree: empathy is a means by which the human brain can write brand new code.  

In these divisive and divided times, there are, fortunately, those who are still bold enough to make the rallying cry back to empathy. At her recent acceptance speech for a Lifetime Achievement Award, actor and committed Christian Jane Fonda spoke warmly and compellingly in favour of empathy:  

“A whole lot of people are going to be really hurt by what is happening, what is coming our way. And even if they are of a different political persuasion, we need to call upon our empathy, and not judge, but listen from our hearts, and welcome them into our tent, because we are going to need a big tent to resist successfully what's coming at us.”  

Fonda’s use of the tent metaphor, I’m sure, was quite deliberate. One of the most famous bible passages about the birth of Jesus describes how he “became flesh and dwelt among us.” The word “dwelt” can also be translated “tabernacled” or, even more literally, “occupied a tent” among us. The idea is that God did not sit back, judging from afar, despite having all the knowledge in the world at his disposal. Instead, God came to humanity through the birth of Jesus, and dwelt alongside us, in all our messy human complexity.  

Did Jesus then kill us with his kindness? No. But you might very well argue that his empathy led to his death. Perhaps this was Musk’s “suicidal empathy.” But in that case Musk and I have found another point about empathy on which we can agree – one that is summed up in the words of Jesus himself: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”   

Celebrate our Second Birthday!

Since March 2023, our readers have enjoyed over 1,000 articles. All for free. This is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you’re enjoying Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?

Do so by joining Behind The Seen. Alongside other benefits, you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing my reading and reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin

Editor-in-Chief